Sunday, January 13, 2013

Judge Not 13 ► Clinging To His Guns

For the 1st full week of the New Year, Judge Andy doubled his output over last week, causing considerable problems at the Judge Not Desk.

If you recall, dear reader, when (several weeks ago) Judge Andy reduced his output to a mere 10 posts, I decided to fire all the Judge Not interns and hire a child instead. Larry (or is it Robert? I really need to remember his name, or hire somebody whose name I can remember) was being trained slowly. However, as Vice President Biden's Gun Control Task Force met with more stakeholders this week, Judge Andy became more and more unhinged. Suddenly, and without any advance warning, he doubled his output and Larry (Robert?) couldn't keep up. I was forced to hire a Temp at a much higher rate than it would have cost had I kept the interns in the first place.

The crux of this story: Monitoring the Laughing Libertarian™ has not been cost effective so far. No matter. Here's this week's edition of Judge Not:

WTF, Judge Andy?

When I create a unique order of English words to convey a thought, it becomes my copyright, or, my intellectual property. How can you silly Libertarians argue that copyright laws are anti-capitalistic on one hand while, on the other, defend physical property rights? Hypocrite, much?

Here's another example of Judge Nap unthinkingly passing along more unthinking wisdom from the unthinking Libertarian Republic. When is a law legal, Judge? I'm surprised I even have to explain this to the Fox "News" Senior Judicial Analyst, but here goes:

A law is legal from the time it is passed right up to the moment it is rejected by the Supreme Court. If it is supported by the Supreme Court, it remains a legal law. Only the Supreme Court can declare a legal law unconstitutional, or illegal.

Still confused? I'll give you a hint, Judge: You might be an originalist, but deep down you really know the law is whatever the courts decide it is. Stop trying to confuse people.

Meh! Who cares what Pelosi said? I'd do anything to thwart the GOP on the Debt Ceiling, even if that meant minting a coin out of Silly Putty.

The Debt Ceiling debate is another one of those phony issues on which Fox "News" has been providing the GOP interference. And, you, Judge Nap, are party to pushing that lie.

The debt ceiling was held hostage the last go-round, which led to the creation of the Fiscal Cliff, remember? Which also led to the credit downgrade, remember? Now the GOP may hold the Debt Ceiling hostage again and you're fully prepared to help in this latest duplicity, Judge. Good for you!

The fact of the matter is, as you well know Judge, the Debt Ceiling is the money already spent. To not raise the debt ceiling is like a credit card holder saying, I don't think I'll pay off the company that has already extended me credit and already paid my bills. It's money already spent, Judge. What part of that don't you understand?

Furthermore, the Debt Ceiling was never the subject of rancorous debate before and it has been raised dozens of times. What changed? Oh right! That Black guy in the White House. I get it now. You're a hypocrite, right?

By the time this Gun Control Battle is over, this mother will be lionized as a Second Amendment Hero™ with her own Commemorative Bullets and statues in every town square.

Trust me on this one.

Just think of McChrystal as the Drone Goldilocks: "These drone strikes are too many. These drone strikes are too few. These drone strikes are just right."

When vegetable gardens are outlawed, only outlaws will have vegetable gardens.

So the fuck what, Judge? There are many municipalities (and don't even get me started on HOAs) that have absurd laws. I'd be willing to lay a $10,000 Mendacious Mitt bet that an equal number of towns and cities have outlawed hanging laundry outside, on your own property. When you start to go after the clothesline laws I'll take you seriously on the front-yard garden issue?

Here we go again! No, Judge. It's not unconstitutional until it's adjudged (look it up) so in a court of law. Until then it's merely YOUR OPINION that it's unconstitutional.

While on the subject: It's not "Obama's extension of the wiretapping law." Let me remind you how this works: The House and the Senate pass the laws. The president can sign them, or veto them. Signing it doesn't make it "Obama's extension," unless you want to start to talk about "Dubya's Illegal War in Iraq" that passed in Congress.

Of course not. Otherwise landlords could also decide not to rent to Blacks, or Jews, or Italian Judges. On the other hand, the cities of San Jose and Oakland could pass legally constituted laws which zone certain areas as "No Pot Zones," but that would just be More Big Government™, wouldn't it? And, just to drive home a previous point: those laws would be perfectly legal until a court of law ruled they were unconstitutional.

Zakly! Just as there is "no merit" to your contention that "the feds used AIG as a piggy bank and they should be made to answer for it." Right, Judge? It's just another lie to make the Black guy in the White House look bad, right? It's okay to admit it. In fact, it might be liberating.

I love how people have seized upon this as a religious freedom issue, as opposed to a human rights issue.

If anyone ever told me they wanted my kids to wear an RFID chip, I'd shove it right up their ass on the spot.

While it may or may not be "economically catastrop," another faux fight over the Debt Ceiling could be a lot worse.

However, the Treasury has ruled out minting a trillion dollar coin. So, that ridiculous Talking Point is gone now. That allows us to concentrate on the obstreperous GOP holding the Debt Ceiling hostage all over again in an attempt to make the president look bad again. It won't work this time. The 'Merkin people are on to the Teabaggers intransigence for the sake of intransigence. I'm looking at you, Eric Cantor.

When Executive Orders are outlawed, only outlaws will issue Executive Orders.

S'funny thing tho', Judge Andy: I never heard the sheep bleating when Dubya was signing all those Executive Orders that he he would not be bound by legally constituted laws while fighting terr'ism. Wouldn't that have been unconstitutional?

Why don't you wait until Executive Orders are actually issued before you start to complain about them, Judge Nap? I know! What a concept!

When do I get my own tank and shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft weapons? I'd need that -- at the very least -- to hold off a tyrannical government for a couple of hours.

So far I'm not laughing, Judge.

TRANSLATION: God gave us our Right to Bear Arms and only God can take them away.

Not just clinging to guns and religion [Where the hell have I heard that phrase before?], but intertwining the two.

[To be fair: The article goes on (and on and on and on). I only used the first 3 paragraphs under the Fair Use laws which protect Judge Nap's copyright. See above.]

Sorry, Judge, wrong again. The rule of law is sovereign.

Because you can always count on Fox "News" to cling to its Guns & God, which is much pithier than "guns and religion."

So, gimmee my thermonuclear bomb already.

This is the lamest defense of gun rights there is. If the government is coming for you, there is no amount of weaponry -- that can legally be owned today -- that would allow you resist for very long. Reasonable gun control laws will not change the balance of power one iota, Judge Nap. Your gun arguments just get worse and worse.

That all depends on what the president does, how the Executive Orders are worded, and whether a court rules for, or against, the Executive Action if implemented and, more importantly, if challenged. Otherwise, to quote President Nixon, "When the President does it, it's not illegal."

This is the second laziest argument made by Second Amendment advocates. And, it's false. Are you aware you are passing along false information, Judge Andy? If not, you can always correct the record. If so, then you are simply a lyin' sumnabitch. I have always suspected the latter.

HAW!!! HAW!!! HAW!!! HAW!!!

And, pointing to violence in Hollywood movies is the third laziest argument of Second Amendment advocates. And, I'd be careful criticizing Hollywood too much, Judge. Fox owns more than one movie production company.

The best words of advice I ever received for instances like
this came from my Pops, who turns 87 next month: "If my grandmother had balls, she'd be my
grandfather." In other words: You can argue "what ifs" 'til you're blue in the face, but
that's not the reality in front of you. Suck it up.

And, this is the 4th laziest argument from Second Amendment advocates. As stupid and offensive as this argument is, Judge, it's not nearly as stupid and offensive as the similar argument of Larry Ward, founder of the upcoming "Gun Appreciation Day," which appears to be designed after the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, except no one is being encouraged to eat their gun. Ward said almost the exact same thing as you did, Judge, except he said, "I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country’s founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history."

You do realize, doncha Judge, that the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were in the ghetto because of pogroms elsewhere and a ghetto was the best they could do? By the time Hitler came along the Jews had been marginalized for several hundred years. You might as well say, "If the Jews had guns, there wouldn't have been a Jewish ghetto in Warsaw." Or, "If my grandmother had balls . . . "

Thanks, Pops.

There are far more people, according to the most recent polls, who think the NRA are "standing on the graves of dead kids" with its knee-jerk reaction to discussions of reasonable gun laws.

I still need you to explain to me how a police department having a drone is any different than a police department having a helicopter. It's not like I haven't asked you several times, Judge Andy.

This became the new way to bash President Obama as the week neared its end. And, oh lookie, Judge Nap is happy to pass along the latest Fox "News" Faux Controversy™.

This is the textbook definition of a closed loop system. Follow along:

Ever since the Newtown Massacre Fox "News" has been trying to do everything in its power to keep the discussion off the death of children and gun control, in essence parroting the stance of the NRA. After the NRA met with Vice President Biden Chris Cox came out and called it a "dog and pony show" and that the administration was just "checking off a box." This made a perfect soundbite for Fox "News," which was happy to promote this one-sided and dismissive point of view. The NRA and, incidentally, Judge Nap, were was so pleased with the Fox "News" promotion that they passed it along to their brain-dead followers. It all comes full circle and the loop is closed.

As long as the discussion remains on gun control, Judge Andy will continue to go off half-cocked. [See what I did there?] He'll continue to send out stupid shit without thinking about the broader implications. Which is why Larry (Robert?) and the new Temp (I know she must have a name) will be working 12-hour shifts, with their lunch break cut to 15 minutes. These weekly episodes of Judge Notdon't write themselves, yannow.